Here's this week's blog from Kate Tawney. Others will follow next week, probably at the rate of two per week until all those who submitted blog ideas have theirs posted.
I've always wondered, in the midst of this crazy transformation in journalism and the hype of social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, how can journalists embrace those sites and utilize them for their work, or should they not look to FB and Twitter at all? I ask because I constantly hear about Twitter on ESPN, various athletes using it, and the reporters quoting their 'tweets' and I was just wondering if that is considered good journalism or just pure laziness.
An article pertaining to my idea:
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2010/04/02/more-journalists-using-facebook-and-twitter
I think social networking sites are a good way to make contacts and do "some" research for stories. I've used Facebook to ask people for input, but I think I would be wary of finding "experts" on sites like Facebook. Maybe I'm just too skeptical, but you never really know, the person might be a total fake and then you lose your credibility as a journalist.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that comes to mind is the idea of friending sources. It seems to me to be a little too personal, especially if you have pictures on your page of the time you were wasted at that party... Perhaps make a professional page to use with potential sources.
I think the biggest reason for quoting tweets would be for entertainment reasons. I mean, yes having access to what party John Mayer went to after his last concert or what Kim Kardashian did after Reggie Bush broke up with her for the second time is entertaining but really.... who cares? News like that is just a conversational starter. You can't find the latest traffic update on Twitter, at least I hope not.
ReplyDeleteAs for Facebook - I would only search a Facebook page for more information, such as friends, clubs, status, personality and what they did last night.
What scares me is that entertainment news is becoming more 'newsworthy' than actual late and breaking news. The younger generation seems to be more interested in following a tweet or watching E instead of recognizing the real issues in this world. Or do they recognize the issues but find it more compelling to follow the tracks of a celebrities life?
ReplyDeleteJust a thought....
I think social networks are making modern impact on the way we receive the news. Journalists are looking more towards social networks to find, deliver and interpret stories. I personally think that journalists can be using social networks for delivering news, but should be cautions about sources. Social networks are not the most reliable resources, and information should be checked and checked again. Networks can be a helpful tools for building stories, but should be limited to just tools. Events happen and can be posted/blogged about, but it is still journalists' jobs to write about the events and make them publishable stories.
ReplyDeleteThere have been several instances, this year alone, that I have received my "breaking" news from Facebook. However, this method of delivery is not journalistic writing, it just posting. By no means are my friends on Facebook journalists or story tellers, they simply highlight events that are newsworthy for a status update.
We still need journalists to write about the news and create stories from happenings, and social networks can prove to be helpful resources in the process.
I think journalists using social networks is a good thing. I have friends that are reporters here in the Tampa Bay area (10connects) who constantly update their Facebook pages with breaking news as they're headed to location. Then they update with photos/video and info on the story. I get some of my news from them, so just think of how many other people are being informed.
ReplyDeleteIf you already have a FB page and wan't to use it for business purposes as well, make another one solely for the goal of self-promotion.
ReplyDeleteFB and Twitter can be utilized not just by journalists, but by people in almost any profession. I'm not an expert on either, but it seems as if twitter is better fit for big-time writers, athletes and celebrities than for recent college grads looking to break into their respective career fields. Twitter, if im not mistaken, doesnt offer much for user feedback, its more geared toward well-known public figures/organizations to gain a mass base of followers.
If I was covering a beat for a newspaper for a college/pro, however, then twitter would be beneficial bc it would provide my readers with quick access to breaking news and updates on stories, etc
Having said that, FB is more for exposure and publicity bc it allows you to incorporate feedback comments, links, audio/video clips, etc all on your page, almost in the mold of a digital portfolio bc it allows you to post a wide array of samples of work from multiple mediums (print, online, radio, tv) each has its own positives and drawbacks
I recently used Facebook to send out a survey on Tattooed Moms. Facebook research apps really don't work that well, so I made the survey on SurveyMonkey.com.
ReplyDeleteI posted it to my page, and others reposted it. I got over 1000 responses to my survey, and I now have a piece that I can sell as well as turn in for an assignment. Without the help of Facebook, I wouldn't have been able to generate that much research. There is something to be said about the fact that Facebook has 400 million users. It's a good research tool if you're looking to poll a large group of people.
I think Facebook can be used to find an inquiry that will need to be fact checked. For instance, I found out Patrick Swayze died on Facebook, to be sure, I double checked it on People.com and Yahoo.
I don't use Twitter, so I can't speak to it's power. But I do think that journalist's "quoting" Twitter is the easy way out....
P.S. Where's Katie's photo?
ReplyDeleteI might be "old skool" but it's hard to get use to the social media frenzy on a personal level and on a journalistic level. Facebook and Twitter can be used for the dissemination of news, but I find myself being very cautious of the source(s). If it's a tweet from a reputable news organization I feel confident that it's correct information, but you never know. I wouldn't use it as a source. I would use it as a lead to a source or to get interview questions. Using these types of social networking for journalism almost seems to belittle our trait/craft. For me it feels like it's not real journalism. What will happen to the already dying newspapers if everyone starts tweeting, or logs on to their Facebook page to read news?
ReplyDeletei can't decide where i am supposed to fall in the whole traditional news vice the new media debacle... Personally, i find it retarded to utilize solely social networks for news (although, yes i am quite aware that some people do that)... but i'm one of those people that doesn't trust a two page spread in a single paper for the entire story (i look for multiple sources and acquire my own background research for issues i actually care about)...so yeah, there's now way i'm going to trust a two sentence fb update or a 20 word tweet...
ReplyDeleteHonestly i think there aren't enough people thinking out of the box... the reason why people like social media updates is that they are quick rundowns of what's happening... and seriously we have all been told over and over how people skim articles for the meat so I don't know why people are so surprised that most news gets spread this way?!?
Personally i vote for a bullet list paper and or bullet list only front page (leads only people) and toss the rest on the backend (ie throw it up on the web if we're losing traditional newspapers) ...this saves expense of printing, gets a high five on convenience and hello gets all the news out there because in the end readers are only going to read what's important and/or interesting to them regardless so why not give them information in a format that works for them and introduces them to more news up front... leave social networks for socializing... and bring back news that actually works for the audience
I have noticed that companies use Twitter to update their followers on several things such as events and breaking news, hoping for some interaction from the public. Also, industries and individuals use Twitter to promote themselves, such as they do with Facebook. I have seen many photographers promote their work via Facebook. I believe that Facebook was originally meant to be a social network, and that is what I use it for. I have found LinkedIn extremely useful for keeping my professional and personal contacts seperate, unlike Facebook, which is meant for sharing photos and personal things with people you know. There is a fine line that has been crossed by mixing personal and professional life online, and I stand my ground with wanting to keep those two lives completely separate.
ReplyDeleteIt might be that I am resistant to quick advancing technology, but I just don't see the point of Twitter on a journalistic sense. In Law, I remember the mention that journalists are having to update where they are going if it's breaking news, and I think that's a great idea, but if they're just going to be putting it up online and in RSS feeds everywhere, or broadcasting live on TV, meh, I'll get around to seeing it without checking Twitter. I can see how Twitter would be useful for promotion of businesses, but forcing journalists to take time from being in the field and to take away from their observations, especially on breaking news, doesn't make much sense to me. If they miss something major in the thirty seconds it takes to pound out 140 characters, well, that sucks for them and their audience, I suppose. Especially if the journalist had been paying attention and the audience found out half an hour later. But again, that could just be me being a pessimist.
ReplyDeleteThought this was interesting.
ReplyDeleteStudent "twitters" his way out of jail http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/25/twitter.buck/
I've got to say that I am not a fan of news on social networking sites. I think that it sets a poor precedent for the future of journalism. If the general public begins expecting their news to come in an ever increasingly more compact package, where then does the whittling down of news stop. This is an extreme example, but I think that it is possible for a majority of daily news in the future to be stripped down to no more than 140 characters or so. If this became the norm, where would the substance of "news" go to? Would people depend on independent sites, forums and advocacy pages to gain the full breadth of a story? Only to polarize people's biases even more so. I feel that these types of news outlets have he potential to be dangerous to journalism's number one goal of acting as a governmental watch-dog. I don't mean to sound like the crazy conspiracy theorist or anything, but I do believe that a heavy reliance on these social networking sites for news could lead to trouble for the American public before they may even realize it
I don't necessarily like the idea of using Facebook for work, but it is a reality now for many professions including journalism. I think that it is important for people to separate their personal pages from their professional pages, and make sure that the posts and pictures on their professional pages are appropriate for work.
ReplyDeleteAs far as twitter goes, I think this website is fairly pointless. A lot of journalism has become less professional through these sites, and I really question the credibility of "news" coming from sites like Twitter. This does not apply to all journalists, but I think as a whole these social networking sites lead to lazy journalists and lazy citizens.
I think that it is lazy IF you only use these mediums. If you are using these types of networks in addition to a more "credible", stable type of news it is actually a good thing. However, if you use twitter and facebook as your only tools to spread the news, you wont seem credible (even if you are) and you probably won't get the recognition you are seeking. I am not against these types of networks, I just feel like they need to be used in addition to and not instead of.
ReplyDeleteI think that social networking sites are a good source to find stories, but not necessarily use in a story. For example, a journalist may hear about a neighborhood issue from a resident's post about it.
ReplyDeleteI think that ESPN using quotes from athlete's twitters is fair game. Sometimes people post things on twitter that they wouldn't normally say which could add to a story or create a story.
I wanted to add a little note about journalists using social networking in other countries. I brought up this subject yesterday when the Moroccan journalists were here. They said that they do not generally rely on social networks to find or research stories. They emphasized that it is mainly used for personal relationships in Morocco.
To simply state it, I think social networking sites are great methods for delivering news and sometimes finding news, but should never be considered a reputable source. Further research must be conducted by the reporter. And in regards to athletes and their 'tweets' being quoted, I agree it is fair game, if they want privacy, their profile can be blocked.
ReplyDeleteBe it as it may, I think i'm the only student who does not use Facebook or any other social networking sites. As for using a quote from these sites or using it to resource stories, i'll never use them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zach socil networking sites can be a great resource for stories nut you have to be careful about your sources. You have to use other source or do some kind of backround check to make sure the source is legit. You definetly need a seperate page that is for your sources a your collegues, preferibly with no wasted pictures of yourself. This will help you rpomote your work and help you maintian contact with your sources. I think thses sites are a necessary tool because of fast pace of today's news cycle. Everything is need right now and twittering your sources helps you do that. It is also an medium that most people are confortabel with and we all know that whena source is confortable with you the story comes out better. I think this medium is alo good for getting out the story because it is fast and unlike TV people can go right to the story they want. Social networking sites and the internet are the wave of the future so everybody better get used to it.
ReplyDeleteSocial networking sites are great because they deliver news quickly. Unfortunately, they aren’t very reputable. I question almost anything posted on Facebook or tweeted on Twitter and will do further research on what I read on those sites if the story sounds legit. Putting news on social networking sites is great because people are constantly on these sites. A person is more likely to check their Twitter or Facebook account then CNN.com or FOX News.
ReplyDeleteRegarding athletes, they control what they write on Twitter which makes it fair game. If they don’t want things quoted from their Twitter account then why are they tweeting it? They are smart people; they know that millions of fans are reading their page…